Too much can not be said or written about the greatness of Jesus Christ. To the Christian He is the foundation and the expectation of a glorious resurrection (I Cor. 3: 11, ch. 15). The scriptures present Jesus as God incarnate, one who was born of a virgin, lived sinlessly, and died triumphantly (Col. 2: 9, Matt. 1: 21-23, Heb. 4: 15, Matt. 26: 28). Could it be, though, man has focused so entirely on Jesus and his accomplishments in making possible man's salvation that he has diminished or removed man's part in obtaining his salvation?

     The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness is threefold. Most man made doctrines have to come in a package. This is because one tenet or teaching necessitates another supportive doctrine. The imputation of Christ's righteousness tenet has two related and necessary doctrines relative to imputation. "The term 'imputation' has been used in theology in a threefold sense to denote the judicial acts of God by which the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity; by which the sins of Christ's people are imputed to Him; and by which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. The act of imputation is precisely the same in each case" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 3, pg. 1463).

     Some who have subscribed to the threefold doctrine of imputation limit the doctrine more in keeping with "impute" (logizomai, Greek word from which "impute" is derived, means to "take into account" (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). Those who limit the action of imputation write, "It is not meant that Christ's people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them, but that His righteousness is set to their account, so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness" (ISBE., Ibid.). However, many do not so limit and qualify "impute." You commonly hear denominational preachers say "When God looks at man, he does not see man, but the righteousness of his perfect Son." They further explain, "There is great comfort in this doctrine (imputation of Christ's righteousness, dm) because Christ has done it all, there is not anything for us to do!"

     The proof verses for the doctrine of imputation. Paul's statement to the Romans serves as proof for the transference of Adam's sins to all men and Christ's personal righteousness to his people (tenets one and three in the doctrine of imputation). Paul wrote, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" (Rom. 5: 18). The proof often presented to teach that our personal sins have been imputed (actually transferred to Christ) is Paul's statement: "For he hath made him to be sin for us…" (2 Cor. 5: 21). Moreover, it is explained regarding this second tenet in the belief system of imputation that the Father had to forsake Christ on the cross because our sins had been "imputed" to Christ and the Father could not come in contact with sin (Matt. 27: 46, Isa. 59: 2).

     Analysis and explanation of the proof verses. The threefold doctrine of imputation stands or falls together. In other words, one cannot hold to one of these doctrines without consistently embracing the other two. As a rule, all three are espoused and taught in most denominations. Too many in churches of Christ have attempted to embrace only the doctrine that our sins are transferred to Christ. Some, an increasing number, are now accepting the teaching that Christ's personal righteousness is transferred to the saved, making them righteous. These same ones will also imbibe the transference of Adam's sin to mankind thus making them sinners, given the time (in all probability).

     Regarding 2 Corinthians 5: 21, why cannot we say Paul is simply saying that Christ was treated as sin for us instead of our sins were actually transferred to him? Jesus was arrested, tried, and underwent one of the most ignominious forms of capital punishment ever known to man (crucifixion) - a form of death reserved for the vilest of sinners! (Matt. 26, 27.) In this same verse, Paul added "who knew no sin." Beloved, Jesus was sinless (Heb. 4: 15). He did not have personal sin which he himself had committed (I Pet. 2: 22). In like manner, Jesus did not possess sin which had been arbitrarily transferred to him and which he absorbed in our behalf. He bore our sorrows and was bruised for our iniquities in that he "tasted death for every man" (Heb. 2: 9, Isa. 53: 4, 5). The original language "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" was prophetic (Ps. 22: 1, Matt. 27: 46).   When the language is examined, one sees the idea is that of simply the Father not helping Jesus, not that the Father had to abandoned Jesus because of the presence of sin (Ps. 22: 1 ff.). 

     Paul in his writings to the Romans is discussing what was lost because of Adam is gained because of Christ (Rom. 5: 12-21). Death came through Adam. However, Paul immediately injects: "…for that all have sinned" (vs. 12). Condemnation was introduced to mankind in that Adam set the example and created the atmosphere for disobedience (vs. 18). In this sense, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners" (vs. 19). Jesus, in the converse, introduced the example of obedience. As a result of Jesus' obedience, there is grace, justification, and righteousness (vs. 15, 17, 18). In this vein we read, "…so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (vs. 19).

     Speaking earlier of consistency, if the personal sin of Adam is unconditionally transferred to all men, thus making them sinners, then the personal righteousness of Christ is unconditionally transferred to all men, thus making them righteous. Hence, universal condemnation and salvation! (See Ezek. 18.)  If now, why not?

     All men are personally and individually amenable to God. The scriptures plainly teach individual responsibility. The scriptures also show that this individual responsibility is essential to man's salvation. "Who will render to every man," Paul says of God, "according to his deeds" (Rom. 2: 6). Some of the advocates of the transference of Christ's personal righteousness tell us the pronoun "his" is Christ. This is what is meant by "righteous judgment of God," they expostulate (vs. 5). However, if we are going to be judged solely by Christ's deeds, how do we explain the following verses which constitute the passage to which verse six belongs? Intelligent reader, this is a good example of how when one perverts one scripture to force it to teach what they want, one must distort other scriptures as well.